Here are some facts from the U.S. Census:
One grain of truth in Samuelson’s argument is that those in one
age bracket, those under 25, actually make less than the average retiree. That bracket of course includes part-time
working students, entry-level workers, etc.
The other grain is that during the currently receding recession, the average
income of those over 65 has remained constant with inflation, because of
pension cost of living increases, while the average income of employed people
of all ages has declined. The
undesirable transfer of wealth that Samuelson deplores is thus that elders are
treading water, and not sinking further.
Samuelson seems not to recall that 60 years ago, half of
those age 65 or above had incomes below the poverty level; today only 20
percent do, and that’s the “transfer of wealth” he worries about. It’s also worthy of note that the official
poverty level these days is a household income of about $19,000. Since those over 65 include a significant
number of women living alone, the fact that the median income for women over 65
is at $15,282 indicates even treading water is not that easy. The male over 65,
at a median income of $25,877, is not exactly bursting with wealth either. So in my mother’s East Texas vernacular, any “transfer”
from young to old constitutes “robbing Peter to pay Paul.” That’s juggling between two bills, neither of
which you can fully cover. Only, other alternatives, like stimulating the
economy, non-employer based health care coverage, etc., he’s not willing to
consider. Until he’s ready for all,
including the really wealthy, to pitch in, he should not be pitting “have-not’s”
against each other.
No comments:
Post a Comment